Hi All,
> I think the most important objectives we arrived at during discussion
>(correct me anyone if I'm wrong):
>
> - OpenKard, including the sources, must be forever free
To be forever free, one does not choose a Public Domain license. The forever
part is something often called, "TAINTING."
The GNU license is tainted. Those titles are free today and must stay in a
free form (GNU-ish) for the future as well.
To favor "SPLITTING" the source -- one would want to split to a commercial
as well as a non-commercial flavor as well. Some here sorta like the idea of
splitting -- and keeping those options open for the future. Personally, I
hate the ideas of splitting.
I like GNU for OPEN-Kard, sure. But I love Public Domain too. I do think
that we should not stress the forever parts if we go PD, as it is just not
true.
As for the license -- don't short-chang e "CULTURE" part either. If we
ask folks to do such and such (and we are stern enforcers and walk the talk
ourselves) -- then IMHO, people will do such and such out of a reson to be
civil. CIVILITY works when called to such behaviors. So, the idea that one
can split, but if splitting occurs, please change the name would be a
"cultural" behavior that we could put forth and all work to insure it
happens. Then this concept doesn't need to be in the license. "PD-Plus," or
some other extra onto the generic license makes the whole license a
specialized one and NOT generic.
=====
>
> This is what the GNU license doesn't explicitly do. It contains a clause
>which could be interpreted to mean that both OpenKard and any stack made
>with it (or at least OpenKard standalones) must be under the GNU license
>again, which prohibits selling it. That's the reason why we think we need
>another license.
Humm. I don't think so. First off, selling of GNU items is okay. The
choke-point is to release the source of stand-alone stackes, IMHO. Right?
But, I think it would be something more to explore the idea that a all
products made from the tool that is of a GNU item are in-fact FREE too. I
think not. Case in point: GNU has a "C" compiler application. One can write
a commercial software title with the GNU "C" tool, and not have the software
title be GNUed. But, if one changes the "C" software tool, that is not
allowed without some strings. So, you can make a widget that crafted with
FREE tools and have the widget be "closed" and "NON-FREE."
I think we would be able to walk a fine line and use the GNU application
license for the authoring tool and NOT need to have all the associated
stacks that a developer ships to end users be part of the GNU package. ---
BUT, this needs a fully functional understanding of the license types and
such, and I'm not sure we are there yet -- nor want to go there even. I've
got my own questions still lurking..... Expert GNU/License advice sorta
needed.
Mark Rauterkus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark Rauterkus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: I'm non digest mode.
